Читать книгу Sociology - Anthony Giddens - Страница 202

Transformationalists take a position somewhere between those of sceptics and hyperglobalizers, contending that globalization is breaking down established boundaries between the internal and the external, the international and the domestic. Yet many older patterns remain, and national governments retain a good deal of power and influence. Rather than losing sovereignty, nation-states are restructuring and pooling it in response to new forms of economic and social organization that are non-territorial (Thomas 2007). These include corporations, social movements and international bodies. The transformationalist argument is that we no longer live in a state-centric world, but states are adopting a more active, outward-looking stance towards governance under complex conditions of globalization (Rosenau 1997).

On this argument, it is also wrong to see fullblown globalization as inevitable or beyond the control of citizens and governments. In fact, globalization is a dynamic, open process that is subject to many influences and is constantly changing. On this view, globalization proceeds in an uneven and often contradictory fashion, encompassing tendencies that operate in opposition to each another (Randeria 2007). There is a two-way flow of images, information and influences from the global to the local, but also in the opposite direction. Global migration, international tourism, mass media and telecommunications contribute to the diffusion of widely varying cultural influences, and the world’s vibrant ‘global cities’, such as London, New York and Tokyo, are thoroughly multicultural, with ethnic groups and cultures intersecting, sharing and living side by side (Sassen 1991).

In summary, transformationalists view globalization as a decentred, reflexive process characterized by links and cultural flows that work in a multidirectional way. Because it is the outcome of numerous intertwined global networks, it is not driven by the USA (Americanization), ‘the West’ (Westernization) or any other part of the world (Held et al. 1999). Nor is globalization a new form of colonialism or imperialism, as the process is open to influence from every part of the world. However, Osterhammel and Petersson (2005) argue that we should use the term ‘globalization’ only when relations across the world have acquired ‘a certain degree of regularity and stability and where they affect more than tiny numbers of people.’ In the future, global networks and relationships must develop into global institutions if the process is to become more permanent and the dominant factor in shaping human affairs.